International Journal of Instruction January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.

1
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net p-ISSN: 1694-609X

The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ Writing in

Terms of Autonomy and Grammatical Accuracy

Nastaran Nazari
Department of English Language Teaching, Khatam university, Iran,
Nastaran_arya@yahoo.com

This paper aims to explore the Iranian EFL (English as a Foreign Language)
learners' ability to gain grammatical accuracy in their writing by noticing and
correcting their own grammatical errors. Recent literature in language acquisition
has emphasized the role of implicit tasks in encouraging learners to develop
autonomous language learning habits, so it is important to consider tasks,
particularly implicit tasks, as an important part of language teaching. In this study
60 EFL students from two elementary English classes were chosen. The students of
one class were engaged in an implicit task in which they compared the use of
grammar in their own writing to the use of that grammar in a written text by a
native speaker, and the other class received no such treatment. The results
indicated that the subjects who had received the treatment performed much better
on the post-test. The outcome of the delayed post-test also confirmed the superior
performance of the learners in the experimental group showing that they had
internalized the targeted structure. Thus such tasks are beneficial in terms of
allowing learners to autonomously make improvements in terms of grammatical
accuracy in their writings.
Keywords: Implicit Tasks; Writing; Learner Autonomy; Grammatical Accuracy;
Learner
INTRODUCTION
Having conducted a great deal of research with regard to grammar instruction,
researchers still have not reached an agreement, and the concept of whether grammar
should be taught directly or not has remained almost as an uncovered issue. Recent
research, however, has made a distinction between Focus on Forms, Focus on Form and
Focus on Meaning approaches. Focus on Forms adopts a structuralist approach to
language and the focus is on the forms rather than the meaning. Focus on Form, on the
contrary, includes drawing the students' attention to grammatical forms in a
communicative context. Focus on Meaning pays no attention to the forms and the focus
of classroom activity is on communication of meaning only (Burgess & Etherington,
2002).
122 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

Krashen, in his natural acquisition hypothesis (1981 as cited in Nassaji and Fotos,
2004), holds that students do not need conscious awareness for learning a language and
they can acquire a language unconsciously. He argues that explicit grammar instruction
only causes an increase in consciously-learned competence which, according to
Krashen, can only function as a monitor. Some other researchers, on the other hand,
emphasize the need for explicit instruction. They reject the traditional way of presenting
grammatical structures in a decontextualized manner though. They suggest that learners
should "encounter, process and use" the target forms in different ways, so that they can
internalize the form. (Nassaji & Fotos, 2004, p 130).
In recent years implicit presentation of grammar has received so much attention. Implicit
instruction provides learners with conditions under which they can infer the rules
without awareness. So they can internalize the pattern without having their attention
focused on it. (Dekeyser, 1995, as cited in R.Ellis 2009).
LITERATURE REVIEW
Grammar in writing
There are many theories on how to implement various approaches in the classroom, and
how to measure learning. Grammar, as well has always been a matter of controversy. A
class of English language learners may perform adequately in routine grammatical
exercises, but then fail to translate this knowledge into reality when faced with the task
of writing. In textbooks, grammar is very often presented out of context. Learners are
given isolated sentences, which they are expected to internalize through exercises
involving repetition, manipulation, and grammatical transformation. These exercises
only provide learners with formal mastery. However, according to Nunan (1998), not
providing learners with opportunities to explore grammatical structure in context makes
it difficult for language learners to use the language for communication. It is the
teacher's task to help learners see that effective communication involves achieving
harmony between grammatical items and the discoursal contexts in which they occur.
The position of grammar in ELT (English Language Teaching) has changed greatly in
the last thirty years. This is particularly the case in the teaching of writing. Writing itself
has been through enormous changes. Frodesen (2001) has pointed that teaching
"grammar in writing" means "helping writers develop their knowledge of linguistic
resources and grammatical systems to convey ideas meaningfully and appropriately to
intended readers” (p. 233). She has also mentioned that "grammar in writing" is an
example of how second language learners can discover and use discourse-level
grammatical principles. In addition to learning principles of grammar in context, she
emphasizes the importance of focus on form for optional second language learning.
Focus on form instruction emphasizes the importance of communicative language
teaching principles such as authentic communication and learner- centeredness. At the
same time it values drawing the learners’ attention to the problematic second language
(L2) grammar forms. Therefore, L2 instruction should expose learners to oral and
written input that is a reflection of real life. The grammatical forms appear in lessons
whose main focus is on meaning and communication. This leads to the concept of

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

Nazari 123

“noticing” which means highlighting forms in the context in order to make them more
familiar to the learners (Long, 1991, as cited in Nassaji & Fotos, 2004).
Autonomous writing
In the past, under the influence of traditional methods, teachers had the main role in the
classrooms providing knowledge and instructions, and learners were expected to be
obedient to their authorities. In such product-oriented and teacher-centred classes
learners were too dependent on their teachers.
According to Bagheri (2011), with the advent of communicative language teaching, the
traditional classrooms were replaced by the learner-centred classes and learners took
more responsibilities in the process of learning. This new approach to language learning
generated the concept of learner autonomy.
There have been a number of definitions on learner autonomy; for example, Little
(1991) defines learner autonomy as “essentially a matter of the learner’s psychological
relation to the process and content of learning- a capacity for detachment, critical
reflection, decision making and an independent action” (p. 4). Elsewhere, Dickinson
(1987 as cited in Hadidi, & Birjandi, 2011, p. 246) holds that learner autonomy is a
“situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all the decisions concerned with
his or her learning and the implementation of those decisions”. According to Bagheri
(2011), common to all the provided definitions is that autonomy gives the learners a
sense of self-esteem and motivation and that leads to better and more effective work.
As writing is an important skill in any languages and it is considered as a means of
developing ideas, suitable autonomous writing exercises could prompt learners to reflect
on their knowledge of language and learning process.
Implicit tasks
The current movement to provide some type of implicit focus on grammar during
communicative language teaching is becoming an increasingly important factor in
English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching. According to Sargen (2009) implicit
activities refer to those which help learners recognize and acquire grammar structures
through authentic use. In such activities context is just as important as form, and before
the grammar point is introduced schema is built. Oral and Written examples derived
from authentic information are provided and students are encouraged to discover,
discuss, compare and self-correct and then move from exploring and learning stage to
producing the structure in activities. The advantages of task performance in terms of
providing opportunities for both target language comprehension and production have
been discussed in a number of surveys and reports. The term, implicit tasks, has usually
been opposed to explicit tasks.
The question of specific instruction is an important one in implicit-explicit debate.
Bugess and Etherington (2002) have discussed this issue under the title of Instruction vs.
Exposure, and point out that teachers are oriented based on their feelings on this issue
(whether exposure to input is enough or formal instruction is necessary?). According to

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

124 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

their findings, most of the respondents agree that it is possible to learn grammar through
exposure to language.
Thornbury (2002) has considered language as context-sensitive. So, if learners are going
to make sense of grammar, they will need to be exposed to that grammar in its context,
and grammar should be taught and practiced in context. When learners receive formal
instruction and then they are provided with communicative exposure to the grammar
points, their awareness of forms becomes longer-lasting and their accuracy improves.
Thus, research shows that learners need opportunities to encounter and produce
structures which have been introduced either explicitly or implicitly (Nasaji & Fotos,
2004).
In this regard, (Vickers & Ene, 2006) argue that one important aspect of language
classroom teaching is helping learners to notice form in the L2 through various
techniques that draw learners' attention to form while they are communicating in the L2.
Such instruction allows learners to become more accurate regarding the form and also
promotes a language learning skill that learners can be equipped with. It encourages
learner autonomy. Doughty & Williams (1998) state that "one of the central issues in
focus on form research is how to lead the learner's attention to a linguistic mismatch
between inter-language and target language" (p. 238). This implies that the recognition
of the mismatch is an autonomous process for language learners.
The theoretical basis for noticing centres on the relationship between explicit and
implicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is conscious knowledge of grammar rules
learned through formal classroom instruction. This knowledge is only available to the
learner when he has time to think about the rules and then apply them. Implicit
knowledge is unconscious, internalized knowledge of a language that is available for
spontaneous speech. Noticing is basically the idea that if learners pay attention to the
form and meaning of certain language structures in input, this will contribute to the
internalization of the rule. Perhaps as soon as learners develop communicative fluency
they do not make progress in accuracy. Noticing helps rectify this by helping learners
"notice the gap." They recognize that the language features they have noticed are
different from their current language (Noonan, 2004). It is possible for learners to notice
the mismatch through different ways. Cross (2002) summarizes factors that draw
attention to certain features in input:
 Explicit instruction -- explaining and drawing attention to a particular form.
 Frequency -- the regular occurrence of a certain structure in input.
 Perceptual Salience -- highlighting or underlining to draw attention to a certain
structure.
 Task Demands -- constructing a task that requires learners to notice a structure
in order to complete it.
There are a lot of studies that have investigated the effects of input enhancement on
drawing the learner's attention to grammar, and this is described as the least explicit

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

Nazari 125

method of focus on form. According to Nassaji & Fotos (2004) textual enhancement
involves "highlighting certain features of input that might not be noticed under normal
circumstances by typographically manipulating them through boldfacing, italicizing,
underlining, or capitalizing" (p. 134). Such manipulations increase the target structures
chance of being noticed. Vickers & Ene (2006) consider noticing through reading as one
of the various ways through which learners can compare their own output to reading
passages. When learners have such opportunity they benefit in terms of improving their
ability to use the form grammatically. Izumi (2002) has also conducted a study in which
the use of the relative clause was typographically enhanced within the reading passage
by using different font types to make the relative clause more noticeable in the context
of reading passage. Learners particularly benefit from producing written output and later
being exposed to the typographically enhanced reading passage in terms of their ability
to subsequently produce relative clauses accurately. Therefore, the acquisition of the
relative clause in Izumi's study was an autonomous process for the learners. In this work,
implicit task is effective in terms of promoting noticing and acquisition.
Doughty & Williams (1998) believe that the purpose of implicit tasks such as the
typographically enhanced reading passage is "to attract the learner's attention to avoid
metalinguistic discussion", and the aim of explicit tasks such as rule explanation
followed by practice is "to direct the learner's attention and to exploit pedagogical
grammar in this regard" (p.232). Furthermore, there is a place for techniques that fall
somewhere in between on a continuum between implicitness and explicitness.
Self-correction
Kavaliauskiene (2003) views language acquisition as a process in which learners should
be relaxed and keen on learning. Fear of making mistakes can cause some difficulties for
learners during the process of learning. To overcome this fear, it is necessary to
encourage cooperation through peer work and apply techniques that involve individual
learners.
The recent research has put much emphasis on learner-centeredness and autonomy, and
suggests that in some situations learners’ self-correction of errors can be more effective
than teachers’ correction. Three reasons are mentionedto describe why self-correction is
important: “it stimulates active learning, induces cooperative atmosphere, and develops
independent learners” (Bartram & Walton 1991, as cited in Kavaliauskiene, 2003, p 81).
According to Kavaliauskiene, teachers only need to initiate self-correction in written
work by showing the mistakes, not correcting them. On the other hand, learners need to
practice it individually. However, they need training in correcting their mistakes;
otherwise, they will be frustrated or overwhelmed by the complexity of the task. At the
end, teachers should provide learners with feedback. The feedback should be given in a
way that encourages learners to monitor their own performance.
Stapa (2003) points out that a vast majority of students, about 64%, are against peer-
correction. However, 72% of the learners care about correcting their own mistakes and
only 28% of them wouldn’t mind self-correction. A study by Kavaliauskiene (2003)
shows that 84% of learners think that teacher’s correction is effective, and 77% of

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

126 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

respondents agree that self-correction is also effective, with only 7% difference. In an

interview with the subjects of this study, they revealed that self-correction tasks helped
them increase awareness of how language works and let them eradicate common errors.
Implicit feedbacks
EFL practitioners agree that error correction is necessary for successful language
acquisition. They are still arguing about ways of conducting it though. An important
issue in this regard is the degree of explicitness and implicitness of the feedbacks.
Explicit correction means giving learners direct forms of feedback. Teachers can
explicitly draw the learners’ attention to their errors by saying that their utterance is
wrong. Implicit correction, on the other hand, provides learners with indirect forms of
feedback. Learners are responsible to deduce from the evidence that they have produced
some erroneous forms (Dabaghi & Basturkmen, 2008).
Schmidts (1990)’s “noticing hypothesis” holds that in order to learn grammatical forms
in a second language, noticing is important, and the explicit corrective feedback
shouldn’t detract from the communicative value of the instruction.
Implicit feedback often appears in the form of recasts. Long (2006) defines recasts as “a
reformulation of all or part of a learner’s immediately preceding utterance in which one
or more non-target like (lexical, grammatical etc.) items are replaced by the
corresponding target language form(s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus
of the interlocutors is on meaning not language as an object”.
There are a number of studies that have investigated the effect of corrective feedback
(implicit or explicit) on L2 acquisition. In a study, Muranoi (2000) compared the
performance of 114 first year Japanese college students in three groups provided with
A) interaction enhancement through requests for repetition and recasts in
communicative task+ explicit grammar explanation, B) interaction enhancement +
meaning focused reports, C) control group ( the subjects in this group didn’t receive any
treatments). The result of the study indicated that both groups A and B outperformed the
control group on post-test and also delayed post-test. However, the group provided with
the explicit explanation had a better performance than the group with no explicit
feedback on posttest1 but not post-test 2. In another study (Leeman, 2003) proved the
superior performance of the learners provided with recasts and those provided with
enhanced salience with no feedback compared to the learners who were shown the
problem but were not corrected and those who weren’t given any treatments. Sanz
(2003, as cited in Vanpatten, 2004 ) also carried out some research whose result
approved the findings of the previously mentioned studies, showing corrective feedback,
both explicit and implicit, had significant effect on improving learners’ ability to
interpret and accurately produce the target form.
Objectives of the Study
As mentioned earlier many studies have demonstrated that learners can make
grammatical gains autonomously by engaging in implicit tasks, however there have been
a few researchers who considered the factors of learners’ age and level of proficiency.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

Nazari 127

What follows is a study conducted to provide empirical data on the effect of implicit
tasks on gaining accuracy in writing among learners aged 14 to 18, which is the age at
which learners are more active and curious and feel more independent. The researcher
has specifically investigated whether language learners can notice and correct their
grammatical errors by 1) being exposed to a reading text that attracts their attention to
the form and 2) comparing the use of the target form in their own writing to a text
containing typographically enhanced target form. To achieve the aim of this study the
following research question has been formed:
Do implicit tasks help young Iranian EFL learners to autonomously improve
grammatical accuracy in their writing?
METHOD
Participants
Participants in this study were 60elementary students of English enrolled in a language
institute in Tehran, Iran. They were intact groups of L2 learners from two classes in
which Interchange Third Edition was taught as the course-book. The learners had
already taken a placement test and they were almost in the same level. The age of
subjects ranged from 14 to 18. Only one of these groups (N=30) received the treatment.
These two classes were taught by the same teacher.
Materials
Materials included the American book Interchange Third Edition (the red book), two
texts chosen from the book New American Streamline which contained the intended
grammatical form (simple present perfect), a direction given to the teacher on how to
perform the tasks, and also two topics for writing compositions. The topics required the
learners to produce sentences containing the intended grammatical form.
Procedure
The researcher investigated the ability of the students to find the mismatch between the
use of the simple present perfect in their own writing and the use of the form in a text.
For this purpose two intact classes of 30 learners were chosen. The subjects were almost
at the same level, taught by the same teacher. The design of this study was quasi -
experimental, because the subjects were not chosen randomly.
The two classes had already been exposed to direct explanation of the simple present
perfect form, and they had been involved in some activities like completing the
sentences and chain game. Each of the following steps was completed on a different day
within a 3 day period.
Pre-test
The pre-test was administered to both classes. The pre-test involved giving a topic
"write a letter to a friend whom you haven't seen for years and describe at least 8
changes you have been through since then" to students and asking them to write about
it. The pre-test took about twenty minutes.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

128 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

Treatment procedure
There were two groups, so one of them was considered as experimental group which
received the treatment and the other one as the control group which received no
treatment. The written outputs of the learners in the experimental group were examined
and the number of errors the learners had made using present perfect was written at the
bottom of the papers.
Then the papers were returned to the learners. In the next step, students were given two
texts containing the grammatical form; simple present perfect. All present perfect forms
were underlined and highlighted in the text in order to attract students' attention. Then
learners were encouraged to find the mismatches between their own inter-language use
of the present perfect in the paragraphs they had written before and target language use
of the form as represented in the texts.
Post-test
Both classes were administered a post-test. The post-test involved another topic "write
about at least 8 interesting things you have done in your life". As in the pre-test students
had to use present perfect to form their paragraphs.
Delayed post-test
Another writing test was administered to students after four weeks in order to find out
whether the result of the post test would last for a long time or not. The topic of the
delayed post-test was “write about the changes the world has been through since twenty
years ago” for which students needed to use present perfect.
Design and Analysis
This study employed two intact classes, so a quasi-experimental design was chosen. The
experimental group received the treatment which was engaging the students in an
implicit task of noticing and an autonomous task of finding mismatches between their
own use of the form and that of the written text. But, the control group received no
treatment. Therefore implicit task, provided and planned by the researcher, is taken as
the independent variable and learners’ autonomy in finding and correcting grammatical
mistakes in their writing is considered as the dependent variable.
The learners' written outputs were corrected in a way that only present perfect was the
point of notice and the basis for scoring. No other error was taken into account. In the
pre-test stage an independent T-test was used and the result obtained from the pre-test
showed that the two groups were homogeneous. After the post-test was administered, an
independent T-test was used to measure the effect of treatment (implicit task) on
improving grammatical accuracy in learners' writing. Another T-test was run to indicate
the effect of the test in the long run.
RESULTS
In the pre-test, an independent T-test was used to check the homogeneity of the students
in the two groups. As displayed in table 1, the level of significance is 0.829, which is
more than 0.05, so the two groups are homogenous.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

Nazari 129

Table 1: Test of homogeneity

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference
Test .047 .829 -.986 58 .328 -.40000 .40571
After the post test, to show the effect of the treatment, an independent T-test was used.
Table 2 presents the result.
Table 2: The result of the post-test
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference
Writing 1.967 .166 -6.871 58 .000 -3.26667 .47545
As displayed in table2, the T observed value is 6.871 at 58 degree of freedom, which is
more than the critical value of T, i.e.2.000 in 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null
hypothesis is rejected and we can conclude that implicit tasks have significant effect on
learners’ ability to autonomously improve grammatical accuracy in their writing.
The graph below shows the difference between the achievements of the two groups very
well.

Figure 1: Another T-test was run to show the result of the delayed post-test. Table 3
represents the result.
Table3: The result of the delayed post-test
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Difference Difference
writing 2 5.419 .023 -3.471 58 .001 -1.50000 4.32094
The T observed value is 3.471 at 58 degree of freedom, which is more than the critical
value of T, i.e.2.000 in 0.05 level of significance. Thus we can conclude that implicit
tasks have significant effect on autonomous improvement of grammatical accuracy in
learners’ writing in the long run.
Descriptive analysis
The following table shows the mean differences between control group and
experimental group in both post-test and delayed post-test. As indicated in table 4, the
mean scores for the experimental group in the post-test and delayed post-test are 16.40
and 15.36, respectively, which are higher than those of the control group. Comparing the
mean scores of the two groups confirms the better performance of the learners in the
experimental group. The standard deviation (SD) for the experimental group was 1.61

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

130 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

for the post-test, and 1.32 for the delayed post-test. Compared to the standard deviations
acquired by the control group, 2.04 for the post-test and 1.96 for the delayed post-test, it
can be concluded that the scores in the experimental group were less spread and more
homogenous than the scores in the control group. To quantify the size of the difference
between the two groups, the effect size has also been calculated. The acquired effect size
is 0.6 for the post test and 0.4 for the delayed post-test meaning that the scores of the
average person in the experimental group, in post-test and delayed post-test are,
respectively, 0.6 and 0.4 standard deviations above the average person in the control
group.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics
Group Statistics
group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
control 30 13.1333 2.04658 .37365
writing
Implicit 30 16.4000 1.61031 .29400
control 30 13.8667 1.96053 .35794
writing2
implicit 30 15.3667 1.32570 .24204

DISCUSSION
What participants show in this study is that autonomous improvement of grammatical
accuracy, in this case in the use of present perfect, is possible via implicit tasks such as
reading and autonomously finding the mismatches between the use of grammar in the
written output and the reading text. The findings show that the learners were able to self-
correct their use of present perfect by comparing the use of form in the typographically
enhanced reading passage and their own written output. It seems that engaging in this
implicit self-correction task allowed learners to use present perfect more accurately and
internalize the rule so they could use it after some time.
There might be several reasons explaining the results. First of all, there is convincing
evidence in the literature that learners who are autonomous in the process of learning
and take the initial steps are more successful than those who are always dependent on
their teachers.
Second, it is wise to say that learners who try to figure out the rules by themselves or
take the responsibility to correct their mistakes using the rules, are more likely to
internalize the structure and use it in the long run.
The other reason that explains the superior performance of the students in the
experimental group is that during the process of writing, the learners had plenty of time
to think. As they had been led to their errors, they had the opportunity to reorganize
their thought and retrieve the rules they had already learnt.
Last but not the least, the subjects in the present study were all teenagers with their ages
ranging from fourteen to eighteen. At this age, learners’ natural curiosity leads them to
explore the unknown and discover their errors on their own, making them want to be
independent of the adults’ help and advice.
The results obtained from this study confirm Izumi's findings (2002) about the effect of
implicit tasks on grammatical gains. These findings are also consistent with outcomes

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

Nazari 131

reported by some other researchers (Carroll and Swain, 1993; Muranoi, 2007; Leeman,
2003). Dam (1995), however, discusses the importance of raising learner awareness of
the learning process or explicit instruction. Although the present study does provide
evidence that engaging students in implicit tasks allows for greater grammatical
accuracy, it does not reject the notion that explicit instruction is to some extent
necessary in teaching grammar.
Learners should be provided with opportunities to encounter and produce grammatical
forms which they have been exposed to either implicitly or explicitly (Nassaji & Fotos,
2004). The outcomes of this study also don’t approve the results reported by Mackey &
Philip (1989) according to which implicit feedback is only suitable for advanced
learners and less advanced students need more explicit feedback. This difference in the
findings, however, could be justified regarding the age of the learners, their motivation,
and the structure of the targeted form.
The finding of this study has important classroom implications. Given the results of the
present research, teachers can help learners to do their best and rely on their own
abilities, and this requires the teachers to provide learners with autonomous, implicit
tasks. It is worthy to draw learners’ attention to rules implicitly and let them go through
the task independently. Generally speaking, when learners encounter the rules they have
already learned and have the opportunity to rebuild them in their mind, they feel more
comfortable, self-confident and motivated in the class room and tend to show more
interest in an activity like writing that they usually find boring. Learners also tend to be
more careful in their writing process making less grammatical errors. The teachers
should consider many criteria such as the purpose of the course, learners' level and
interests, though. In devising implicit tasks, it is important to notice the materials used
within the task, and also the population of learners. Vickers & Ene (2006) stress that it is
important to avoid the texts which are difficult and unfamiliar to the learners, because
they attract the learners' attention to the content of the text rather than to the use of
grammatical form in the text.
It is important to note that because of some limitations imposed by the institute, it was
not possible for the researcher to choose an appropriate number of subjects who are at
the same level, so two intact classes were chosen. As the subjects were not selected
randomly, there is the possibility of threat to internal validity. The other point that
shouldn’t be underestimated is the age of learners. The age of subjects in this study
ranged from 14 to 18. Naturally, learners at this age are more active and more motivated
than learners of older ages and would like to be more independent from their teachers.
They tend to embrace the new methods offered by the teachers. On the other hand, older
learners are used to more traditional methods of teaching grammar, and it may lead them
to show resistance against autonomous learning and working independently. Finally it is
important to point that the contexts should be assessed in terms of the learners' ability
and motivation to participate in autonomous language learning tasks.
CONCLUSION
The current movement to some type of implicit focus on grammar is becoming an
increasingly important factor in ESL syllabus design. The subjects in this study made
gains in terms of accurate use of present perfect in their writing through being engaged

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

132 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

in some implicit tasks. This is opposite what educators often expect from Iranian
language learners, since they are used to traditional methods of teaching that are applied
in schools. Therefore, following the direct instruction, implicit tasks such as noticing
and encouraging learners to autonomously find the mismatches between their IL and TL
prove to be useful.
However, the role of the teacher in helping the learners to notice the mismatch depends
very much on the learners' experience of language learning and their motivation. In
some contexts teachers need to be more involved in the process of language teaching,
and in some other contexts, learners should be given more freedom to act autonomously.
These important decisions must be finally made by teachers.
REFERENCES
Bagheri, M.S. (2011). The impact of practicing autonomy on the writing proficiency of
Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, 15: 1-13.
Burgess, J. & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or Implicit.
System, 30: 1-26.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. An empirical
study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second language
Acquisition, 15: 357-386.
Celce Murcia, M. (2001). Teaching English as second or foreign language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cross, J. (2002). Noticing in SLA: Is it a valid concept? TESL-EJ 6/3.
Dabaghi, A. &Basturkmen, H. (2009).The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error
correction on learners’ performance. System, 37: 82-98.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Doughty, C. & J. Williams. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. et al, (2009), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning,
testing and teaching. The UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hadidi, N. & Birjandi, P. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy through self-and peer
assessment. International journal of academic research, 3: 245-252.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis.Studies in
second language acquisition, 24 (4): 541-577.
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2003). Correction and self-correction of written assignments at
tertiary level. Journal of Language and Learning.1/2.
http://www.jllonline.co.uk/journal/jllearn/1_2/kavaliauskiene.html
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative
evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1): 37–63.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy. 1: definitions, issues and problems. Dublin:
Authentic.

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

Nazari 133

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language
development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern language journal, 82: 338-
356.
Muranoi, H. (2007). Output practice in the L2 classroom. In R. Dekeyser, Practice in a
second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (51-
84). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nassaji, H. & Fotos, S. (2004). Current Developments in research on the teaching of
grammar. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 126-145.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for a communicative classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Noonan, F. J. (2004). Teaching ESL students to "notice" grammar. The Internet TESL
Journal, 10(7). http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Noonan-Noticing.html
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
linguistic,s 11: 129-158.
Stapa, S.H. (2003). ESP Students' Learning Preferences: Are the Teachers Aware? The
English for Specific Purposes World, 4(2): 1-11.
http://esp-world.info/Articles%204/issue%204/%20Stapa.html
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach grammar. Essex: Longman.
Vickers, C. &Ene, E. (2006). Grammatical Accuracy and Learner Autonomy in
Advanced Writing. ELT Journal, 60(2): 109-115.

Turkish Abstract
Özerklik ve Dil Bilgisel Doğruluk Açısından Öğrencilerin Yazılarını Geliştirmede Dolaylı
Aktivitelerin Etkisi
Bu çalışma İranlı İngilizce (yabancı dil olarak) öğretmenlerinin kendi yazılarındaki dil bilgisi
hatalarını fark edip düzelterek dil bilgisel doğruluk elde etme becerilerini araştırmayı
amaçlamaktadır. Dil edinimindeki güncel literatür öğrencileri özerk dil öğrenme alışkanlıkları
geliştirmeye teşvik etmek için dolaylı aktivitelerin rolünü vurgulamaktadır, bu yüzden aktiviteleri,
özellikle dolaylı olanlarını dil öğretmede önemli bir parça olarak düşünmek önemlidir. Bu
çalışmada iki temel İngilizce sınıfından 60 öğrenci seçilmiştir. Sınıfın birindeki öğrenciler kendi
yazılarındaki dil bilgisi kullanımlarıyla, İngilizce ana dili olan birisinin yazısındaki dil bilgisi
kullanımını karşılaştırdığı dolaylı bir aktiviteyle görevlendirilmişken, diğer sınıf böyle bir çalışma
yapmamıştır. Sonuçlar yukarıda bahsedilen aktiviteyle görevlendirilenlerin son-testte daha iyi
olduklarını göstermiştir. Geciktirilmiş son-testin sonuçları da deney grubundaki öğrencilerin daha
iyi performans gösterdiklerini doğrulamış ve bu öğrencilerin hedef yapıyı içselleştirdiklerini
göstermiştir. Sonuç olarak bu tür aktiviteler öğrencilerin yazılarında dil bilgisel doğruluk
açısından özerk olarak geliştirme yapmaya fırsat tanımada yararlıdır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Dolaylı Aktiviteler, Yazma, Öğrenci Özerkliği, Dil Bilgisel Doğruluk,
Öğrenci

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1

134 The Impact of Implicit Tasks on Improving the Learners’ …

French Abstract
L'Impact de Tâches Implicites sur l’Amélioration de l'Écriture des Apprenants en Termes
d'Autonomie et Exactitude Grammaticale
Cet article a pour but d'explorer la capacité des apprenants EFL (l'anglais langue étrangère)
iraniens de gagner l'exactitude grammaticale dans leur écriture par remarquer et corriger leurs
propres erreurs grammaticales. La littérature récente dans l'acquisitions de langue a sougligné le
rôle de tâches implicites pour encourager des apprenants à développer des habitudes
d'apprentissage des langues autonomes, donc il est important de considérer des tâches, des tâches
particulièrement implicites, comme une partie important d'enseignement des langues. Dans cette
étude 60 étudiants d'EFL de deux classes anglaises élémentaires ont été chosis. Les étudiants
d'une classe ont été engagés dans une tâche implicite dans la quelle ils ont comparé l'utilisation de
grammaire dans leur propre écriture à l'utilisation de cette grammaire dans un texte écrit par un
locuteur natif et l'autre classe n'a pas reçu un tel traitement. Les résultats ont indiqué les
apprenants qui avaient reçu le traitement ont montré une performance beaucoup mieux sur le
post-test. Le résultat du post-test retardé a aussi confirmé la performance supérieure des
apprenants dans le groupe expérimental par montrer qu'ils avaient intériorisé la structure ciblée.
Ainsi de telles tâches sont avantageuses en terms de permettre aux apprenants d'autonomement
faire des améliorations en terms d'exactitude grammaticale dans leurs écritures.
Mots clés: Tâches Implicites; Ecriture; Autonomie D'apprenant; Exactitude Grammaticale;
Apprenant

Arabic Abstract
‫تأثير المهام الضمنية على تطوير كتابة الدارسين من خالل الذات وسالمة النحو‬
‫ تأكيد وجود إمكانية لدى الواليات المتحدو األمريكية نستران نزاري نستران نزاري‬: ‫الهدف من هذه الدراسة هو‬
‫ كذلك وجود إمكانية لدى هؤالء لممارسة الكتابة‬، ‫الدارسين اإليرانيين في تعلم اللغة اإلنجليزية كلفة أجنبية‬
. ‫ وذلك يسبب اإلستفادة من تصحيح أخطائهم النحوية من قبلهم‬، ‫األدب اإلنجليزيه مع خلوها من األخطاء النحوية‬
‫الحديث قد أشار إلى إمكانية إكتساب اللغة من خالل الدور الذي يمكن أن تلعبه المهام الضمنيه في تشجيع‬
. ‫ بات امرا ً هاما ً أن يوضع المهام الضمنيه في الدارسين للسعى نحو تطوير عادات لغوية تعليميه ذاتية‬،‫لهذا‬
‫) يدرسون‬06( ً ‫ بل كأسلوب تدريسي – في هذه الدراسه – هنالك ستون طالبا‬، ‫ ألساس وكجزء هام‬، ‫الحسبان‬
، ‫ وضمنت هؤالء‬، ‫ قد تم أختيارهم من قاعات دراسيه متعددة بالمرحلة اإلبتدائية‬، ‫اللغة األنجليزية كلغة أجنبية‬
‫هنالك طالب فصل واحد فقط هم الذين أنخرطوا في ما يسمى بالمهام الضمنيه حيث قورنت كتاباتهم من خالل النحو‬
‫ فقد تأكدت أن نتائج هؤالء الذين أنخرطوا في‬، ‫بكتابات المتحدثين بهذه اللغة ذاتها – أما نتيجة هذه الدراسة‬
‫ ذلك ألن المنخرطين قد حذفوا اللغة ( والنحو خاصة ) فبرعوا‬، ‫المهام هي أفضل من نتائج المتحدثين بهذه اللغة‬
. ‫في الكتابة‬
‫ مهام ضمنية – الكتابة – ملتقى ذاتي – سالمة النحو‬: ‫كلمات أساسيه‬

International Journal of Instruction, January 2014 ● Vol.7, No.1